AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]
Before proceeding further, it is revealed from the record that the applicants have filed M.A. No. 1167/2026 seeking permission to file a joint application. For the reasons stated therein, the said M.A. is allowed.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are employees of the Gulmarg Development Authority and were appointed as Road Workers in the year 1992. Their appointments and service particulars were duly recorded in their respective service books and other official service records maintained by the respondents, and their service has never been disputed.
It is submitted that, pursuant to the Government order issued in the year 1990 providing for revision of the pay scale applicable to the relevant posts, and upon consideration of the matter by the competent authorities in the light of the directions issued in earlier proceedings, the entitlement of the applicants was examined on the basis of their service records. After such examination and verification, the benefit of the revised pay scale was extended to the applicants and their pay was accordingly upgraded. The revised pay fixation was incorporated in their service records, and they continued to draw salary in the upgraded pay scale for several years.
Learned counsel further submits that, despite the benefit having been sanctioned and implemented by the records, the same was abruptly withdrawn/stopped in July 2023. It is the specific grievance of the applicants that the said withdrawal was effected without issuance of notice, without affording them an opportunity of hearing and without passing any reasoned or speaking order.
It is further submitted that there has been no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment or manipulation of records against the applicants. According to the applicants, they had no role in the fixation of their pay and merely received the salary as calculated and released by the competent departmental authorities. It is, therefore, contended that any alleged erroneous fixation was attributable to the departmental authorities and not to any act or omission on the part of the applicants.
Learned counsel submits that the withdrawal of the benefit has adversely affected the applicants' pay and service conditions and may also have consequential implications for their retiral and pensionary benefits. It is contended upgraded pay scale for several years, the respondents could not have withdrawn the benefit arbitrarily and without following due process of law.
It is further submitted that similarly situated employees of the same establishment, whose pay had also been fixed in accordance with the same Government order, had approached this Tribunal in respect of the same issue. According to the applicants, some of those employees had superannuated and their retiral and pensionary benefits were withheld on the ground that their pay had allegedly been wrongly fixed. The Tribunal, in those proceedings, directed consideration of their claims and also protected them against recovery of the amounts already paid during their service, particularly in the absence of any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation.
Learned counsel submits that the applicants are similarly situated to the employees who were before this Tribunal in the aforesaid proceedings, as they were appointed in the extended the benefit of the revised pay scale after verification of their service records and continued to receive the said benefit for a considerable period. It is, therefore, contended that there is no distinguishing feature warranting a different treatment in the case of the present applicants.
It is further submitted that the respondents are required to maintain consistency in their treatment of similarly situated employees and that denial of similar consideration and protection to the applicants would result in unequal and discriminatory treatment. The applicants also contend that the continuous payment of salary in the upgraded pay scale for several years gave rise to a legitimate expectation that the benefit would not be withdrawn arbitrarily or without lawful justification.
Learned counsel further submits that, even if the respondents were to contend that the benefit had been erroneously extended, the applicants should not be as they neither committed fraud nor made any misrepresentation and the fixation was made by the competent departmental authorities on the basis of the official records.
It is submitted that the applicants accordingly seek restoration of the benefit, consequential re-fixation of their pay, payment of arrears and all consequential service and pensionary benefits. They also seek protection against recovery of any amount already paid to them pursuant to the revised pay fixation and seek treatment at par with similarly situated employees who had earlier approached this Tribunal.
Learned counsel further submits that the adverse consequences arising from the withdrawal of the benefit are continuing in nature and that the applicants have approached this Tribunal for the first time in respect of the present grievance. It is also stated that no other proceedings concerning the same subject matter are
The grievance of the applicants, in substance, is that a pay benefit extended to them by the respondents after examination and verification of their official service records, and which continued for several years, was withdrawn in July 2023 without notice or opportunity of hearing and without any reasoned order, despite there being no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation or other wrongdoing on their part. On this basis, the applicants seek restoration of the benefit and consequential relief, claiming parity with similarly situated employees who had earlier obtained relief from this Tribunal.
However, after arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the ends of justice would be adequately served if a direction is issued to the respondents to treat the present Original Application as a representation and to consider the assertions made therein, along with the documents annexed thereto, strictly in accordance with law within a stipulated period. advance notice served by learned counsel for the applicants, submits that the present Original Application may be disposed of with appropriate directions, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and the material placed on record, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present Original Application pending, particularly in view of the limited prayer made on behalf of the applicants.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, the present Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the Original Application as a representation and consider the assertions made therein, together with the documents annexed thereto, strictly in accordance with the applicable Central Administrative Tribunalrules, regulations and the law governing the field, subject to the applicants fulfilling the requisite eligibility and entitlement and there being no legal impediment in doing so.
The respondents shall associate the applicants in the process of consideration of their claim and afford them an opportunity of being heard, before taking a final decision. Thereafter, the respondents shall pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of service of a certified copy of this order upon them.
It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims raised by the applicants, and all questions of fact and law are left open to be considered and decided by the competent authority strictly in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid directions, the Original Application stands disposed of. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Central Administrative Tribunal22.No order as to costs.
Registry shall consign the file to the Record Room after due compliance.